Sentences with phrase «of water vapor per»

pressure and 100 % humidity has 12.1 g of water vapor per cu.

Specific Humidity: Ratio of the mass or weight of water vapor in the air to a unit of air including the water vapor — grams of water vapor per kilogram of wet air.

However, because atmospheric concentrations of water vapor tend to be at most only a few percent of the amount of air (and usually much lower), they are both often expressed in units of grams of water vapor per kilogram of (moist or dry) air.

(6 kilograms), of water vapor per second from its surface.

Not exact matches

It's not much — just 6 kilograms per second — but there's water vapor coming off two regions of Ceres, the solar system's largest asteroid.

An instrument on Rosetta is already measuring 5 liters per second of water vapor production, but that rate is expected to rise to 500 liters per second by the time 67P makes its closest approach to the sun in August 2015.

Water vapor permeated the material at the target rate of less than 10 - 6 grams per square meter per day.

Here is what scientists think is happening: when Ceres swings through the part of its orbit that is closer to the sun, a portion of its icy surface becomes warm enough to cause water vapor to escape in plumes at a rate of about 6 kilograms (13 pounds) per second.

With JWST, a few hours of integration time will be enough to detect Earth - like levels of water vapor, molecular oxygen, carbon dioxide and other generic biosignatures on planets orbiting a white dwarf; beyond that, observing the same planet for up to 1.7 days will be enough to detect the two CFCs in concentrations of 750 parts per trillion, or 10 times greater than on Earth.

«With a range of over 300 miles per tank, a refueling time of under five minutes, and emissions that consist only of water vapor, Mirai is leading the world forward toward a more sustainable future.»

The surface heat capacity C (j = 0) was set to the equivalent of a global layer of water 50 m deep (which would be a layer ~ 70 m thick over the oceans) plus 70 % of the atmosphere, the latent heat of vaporization corresponding to a 20 % increase in water vapor per 3 K warming (linearized for current conditions), and a little land surface; expressed as W * yr per m ^ 2 * K (a convenient unit), I got about 7.093.

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

Depending on just what you assume about cloud and water vapor distributions, this yields a radiative forcing of about -2.5 Watts per square meter.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

Btu per cubic foot: The total heating value, expressed in Btu, produced by the combustion, at constant pressure, of the amount of the gas that would occupy a volume of 1 cubic foot at a temperature of 60 degrees F if saturated with water vapor and under a pressure equivalent to that of 30 inches of mercury at 32 degrees F and under standard gravitational force (980.665 cm.

Exactly the same sequence of events, MUST happen, before water vapor can condense into liquid water; but this time the latent heat that must FIRST be removed, is about 590 calories per gram.

For example, water vapor has a turnover rate of 40 times per year.

There are those who appear to steadfastly maintain that all thermal radiation is from the surface and the and the convection return flow, which must heat at the dry adiabatic rate of 9.8 deg C per 1000 meters going down — unless it is gobbling up condensed water vapor on the way, and reach the surface before it can be cooled again.

A thunderstorm event might be best depicted as a run - away rising column of air that is becoming progressively warmer than the surrounding air as condensing water vapor yields its heat of vaporization until almost all water vapor has condensed out and then cooling at a rate of 9.8 deg C per 1000 meters, it eventually reaches a warmer layer of air and spreads out like smoke over a ceiling.

Redently scientists that have measured the water vapor content of the atmosphere have deduce the amount of water vapor increase has been about 1 % per year over the past ten years.

«The amount of water vapor in clouds varies widely depending on temperature, pressure, etc., but five grams per cubic meter is about average.»

Some of the mid-latitude increase of stratospheric water vapor (1 % per year) over the period of 1980 - 2006 can be explained by the increase of atmospheric methane, but not all.

They most certainly don't cancel one another as the water vapor feedback is much larger and the cloud feedback either adds or is small to allow for measured values of 2 C per doubling.

Note 1: A simple hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm; then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms even more; and then auto «repeat and rinse» until Earth's oceans boil, per an «expert.»

A few years ago, I drove a General Motors hydrogen prototype on an Arizona test track, and it was capable of speeds of up to 100 miles per hour, handled well, was whisper - quiet and emitted only water vapor for exhaust.

There might be 3 or 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air, but at 298K and 50 % RH, there would be 96 molecules of water vapor which absorbs IR at 19 different wavelengths in the IR.

ANSWER: by «saturation» is usually meant a complete absorption of the radiation of the surface by the carbon dioxide and water vapor of the air: according to Dufresne and Treiner it is saturated and according to Pierrehumbert (Physics Today 2011) it is not; for me 0.8 (W / m ²) / 400 = 0.2 % for a doubling of the CO2 content is» nearly saturated»; 0.8 W / m ² is the additional absorption for 2xCO2 (e.g. per Hansen 1981)

A correction to one of the statements above: «The first one is that the dynamic power of circulation (variable q in the post) is equal to potential energy released per unit time that is associated with the non-equilibrium vertical gradient of water vapor.

«The first one is that the dynamic power of circulation (variable q in the post) is equal to potential energy released per unit time that is associated with the non-equilibrium vertical gradient of water vapor.»

The Science of Doom article conflates a bunch of issues and is particularly unhelpful for understanding the nature of CO2 and water vapor as greenhouse gases per se.

While water vapor accounts for one to two percent of the atmosphere on any given day, «CO2 is only about 0.04 % of the atmosphere (400 parts per million), so it's much less important than water vapor.»

Satellites show that OLR from clear skies increases less than about 1 W / m2 less than expected per degC of warming from changes in water vapor and lapse rate (two of your response channels).

Observations over a 14 - year period (1981 - 1994) show an increase in water vapor in the lower stratosphere over Boulder of a little less than one 1 % per year.

Mixing Ratio: Ratio of the mass of water vapor to the mass of dry air - grams per gram or grams per kilogram.

Although hydrogen generates about 62,000 Btu per pound, it accounts for only 5 percent or less of coal and not all of this is available for heat because part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor.

While it was true that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been increasing, he said, and had passed 400 parts per million, the dominant effect of water vapor had helped flatten the greenhouse effect, such that the rise of global surface temperatures had slowed significantly.